Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12289 

1Petition of the United States Postal Service for 

the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed 

Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal One), 

February 8, 2024 (Petition). 

2 Id. (citing Docket No. RM2017–11, Order on 

Analytical Principles Used in Periodic Reporting 

(Proposal Seven), November 20, 2017, at 4, 8 (Order 

No. 4227)). 

3 Id.; see Docket No. R2021–2, Order on Price 

Adjustments for First-Class Mail, USPS Marketing 

Mail, Periodicals, Package Services, and Special 

Services Products and Related Mail Classification 

Changes, July 19, 2021 (Order No. 5937). 

filing of a request for Panel 

consideration. A clean copy may be 

submitted for the original. Responses or 

documents may be submitted 

electronically through use of the eFiling 

system on the FLRA’s website at 

www.flra.gov, or by registered mail, 

certified mail, regular mail, or 

commercial delivery. Responses or 

documents also may be accepted by the 

Panel if transmitted to the facsimile 

machine of its office, the number of 

which is (202) 482–6674. A party 

submitting a response or document by 

facsimile shall also file an original for 

the Panel’s records, but failure to do so 

shall not affect the validity of the filing 

by facsimile, if otherwise proper. While 

responses or documents may also be 

submitted by in-person delivery to the 

FSIP, you must first obtain permission, 

by calling (771) 444–5762, and then 

schedule an appointment at least one 

business day in advance of submission. 

In-person delivery is accepted with 

permission, and by appointment only, 

Monday through Friday (except federal 

holidays). 

* * * * * 

(d) The date of service or date served 

shall be the day when the matter served, 

if properly addressed, is deposited in 

the U.S. mail, deposited with a 

commercial-delivery service that will 

provide a record showing the date the 

document was tendered to the delivery 

service, or delivered in person after 

permission to do so is granted. Where 

service is made by electronic or 

facsimile transmission, the date of 

service shall be the date of transmission. 

* * * * * 

Approved: February 12, 2024. 

Thomas Tso, 

Solicitor and Federal Register Liaison, Federal 

Labor Relations Authority. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03210 Filed 2–15–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7627–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3050 

[Docket No. RM2024–3; Order No. 6965] 

Periodic Reporting 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is 

acknowledging a recent filing requesting 

the Commission initiate a rulemaking 

proceeding to consider changes to 

analytical principles relating to periodic 

reports (Proposal One). This document 

informs the public of the filing, invites 

public comment, and takes other 

administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: February 26, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http://

www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit 

comments electronically should contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

telephone for advice on filing 

alternatives. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 

202–789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Proposal One 

III. Notice and Comment 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

On February 8, 2024, the Postal 

Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 

CFR 3050.11 requesting that the 

Commission initiate a rulemaking 

proceeding to consider changes to 

analytical principles relating to periodic 

reports.1 The Petition identifies the 

proposed analytical changes filed in this 

docket as Proposal One. 

II. Proposal One 

Background. The Postal Service has in 

recent years made several proposals to 

improve the methodology used to 

calculate dropship workshare discounts 

for various flat-shaped USPS Marketing 

Mail mailpieces. Petition, Proposal One 

at 1. For some flat-shaped USPS 

Marketing Mail pieces, two rates are 

available: (1) a per-piece rate for pieces 

up to a 4-ounce breakpoint weight; (2) 

and a combined rate, per piece and per 

pound, for pieces heavier than the 4- 

ounce breakpoint weight. Id. In 2017, 

the Postal Service’s passthrough 

calculation divided the discount for the 

heavier pieces by the avoided cost per 

pound for all pieces, both above and 

below the 4-ounce breakpoint. Id. at 2. 

The Postal Services states that this 

method was ‘‘incomplete,’’ because ‘‘[i]t 

did not include in its numerator pieces 

below the pricing breakpoint, but it did 

include the weight of those pieces in the 

denominator.’’ Id. Therefore, the Postal 

Service proposed, and the Commission 

approved, the following methodology to 

calculate dropship workshare discounts 

for USPS Marketing Mail that included 

the discount for pieces at or below the 

breakpoint weight in the numerator: 

((Pound discount * Pounds above breakpoint) + (Piece discount * Pieces below breakpoint)) 

(Avoided cost per pound * Pounds above and below breakpoint) 2

The Postal Service states that the 

usual approach of taking ‘‘the unit 

discount from the published benchmark 

price’’ divided by the avoided cost ‘‘did 

not work because the benchmark price 

varies with the different weights of the 

pieces mailed.’’ Id. at 3. The Postal 

Service states that it could only 

calculate the workshare discounts for 

these flat-shaped USPS Marketing Mail 

mailpieces on a weighted basis after 

mailing, ‘‘when the weights and 

numbers of pieces sent were known.’’ 

Id. The Postal Service contends that, as 

a practical matter, the passthrough 

percentages for these mailpieces could 

sometime vary widely with changes in 

mail volumes and weights which, in 

turn, made it more difficult for the 

passthrough percentages to meet the 

requirements of 39 CFR 3030.284 and 

3030.284. Id. 

The Postal Services states that it 

identified the problem complying with 

39 CFR 3030.284 and 3030.284 in 

Docket No. R2021–2, ‘‘where it was 

mathematically impossible for the 

Postal Service to make all six 

passthrough percentages for Basic 

Carrier Route Flats (those on 5-Digit 

pallets and those on all other pallets)’’ 

comply with the Commission’s 

workshare discount regulations.3 The 

Postal Service therefore filed a petition 

to address the non-compliance by 

modifying how it calculated and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
12290 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

4Petition, Proposal One at 3; see Docket No. 

RM2021–6, Petition of the United States Postal 

Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to 

Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles 

(Proposal Three), April 8, 2021. 

5Petition, Proposal One at 4–5 (citing Docket No. 

RM2021–6, Order on Analytical Principles Used in 

Periodic Reporting (Proposal Three), November 4, 

2021, at 11 (Order No. 6032)). Additionally, the 

Postal Service states that, in approving the price 

adjustments in Docket No. R2021–2, the 

Commission also granted a one-time exemption 

from 39 CFR part 3030, subpart J for Basic Carrier 

Route Flats entered at the [Destination Delivery 

Unit] DDU workshare discount that noted the 

‘‘mathematical impossibility’’ of compliance. 

Petition, Proposal One at 4. 

6 Id. at 5–6 (citing Docket No. RM2022–12, Order 

Approving Postal Service Application for Waiver 

under 39 CFR 3030.286, August 30, 2022, at 9, 11 

(Order No. 6261)). 

7Petition, Proposal One at 6, 7–8 (citing Docket 

No. RM2023–4, Petition of the United States Postal 

Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to 

Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles 

(Proposal One), February 10, 2023; Docket No. 

RM2023–4, Order on Analytical Principles Used in 

Periodic Reporting (Proposal One), April 6, 2023, at 

14 (Order No. 6474). 

reported passthroughs for USPS 

Marketing Mail flats.4 Specifically, the 

Postal Service proposed to calculate and 

report passthroughs for USPS Marketing 

Mail Carrier Route Flats on 5-digit 

pallets and passthroughs for all other 

USPS Marketing Mail Carrier Route 

Flats together rather than separately. 

Petition, Proposal One at 4. The 

Commission approved this proposal and 

Postal Service notes that the 

Commission observed that the prior 

methodology ‘‘leads to anomalous 

results and could precipitate inefficient 

pricing.’’ 5

The Postal Service states that while 

the adjustments in 2021 prevented the 

compliance problem for USPS 

Marketing Mail Carrier Route Flats on 5- 

digit pallets from reoccurring, ‘‘the 

adjustments did not otherwise change 

the methodology for calculating 

passthrough percentages for other flatshaped [USPS] Marketing Mail pieces 

with piece and pound price 

components.’’ Id. at 5. Instead, the 

Postal Services states that changes in 

volumes and weight cause compliance 

issues with 39 CFR 3030.284 and 

3030.284. Id. The Postal Service states 

that it ‘‘found a great disparity in the 

volumes and weights of [USPS] 

Marketing Mail Carrier Route Flats 

dropshipped at the [destination 

sectional center facility] DSCF and 

[destination delivery unit (DDU)].’’ Id. at 

5. The Postal Service states that it 

requested, and the Commission granted, 

a waiver permitting the passthrough 

percentage for USPS Marketing Mail 

Carrier Route Flats dropshipped at the 

DDU to be 105 percent.6 Thereafter, the 

Postal Service again revised the way it 

prices flat-shaped USPS Marketing Mail 

pieces with piece and pound price 

components and offering dropship 

discounts on per-piece prices only, 

which the Commission approved.7

The Postal Service’s current 

methodology for calculating workshare 

discount passthrough percentages is 

‘‘the same . . . as it uses for most other 

products, dividing the per-piece 

discount by the per-piece cost 

avoidance.’’ Petition, Proposal One at 7. 

The Postal Service states that the 

passthrough percentages no longer vary 

with the different weights of pieces 

mailed because the passthroughs are 

calculated independently of the 

volumes and weights of pieces mailed. 

Id. 

The Postal Service states that its 

current methodology for calculating 

workshare discount passthrough 

percentages ‘‘has some limitations.’’ Id. 

The Postal Service argues that because 

pound prices do not vary by dropship 

entry point, it reduces incentives for 

mailers to dropship flat-shaped pieces 

weighing more than 4 ounces closer to 

their delivery destinations. Id. at 8. The 

Postal Service also states that its current 

methodology does not ‘‘reflect the 

avoided costs of delivering flat-shaped 

[USPS] Marketing Mail pieces as closely 

as they could.’’ Id. at 9. Instead, the 

Postal Service states that workshare 

discounts for pieces weighing more than 

4 ounces are too small relative to their 

avoided costs, while those for pieces 

weighing 4 ounces or less are too large. 

Id. 

Proposal. The Postal Service proposes 

to address the limitations in its current 

methodology for calculating workshare 

discount passthrough percentages by 

separately deriving prices for flatshaped USPS Marketing Mail pieces at 

or below the 4-ounce breakpoint from 

those pieces above the 4-ounce 

breakpoint. Id. For mailpieces at or 

below the 4-ounce breakpoint, the 

Postal Service states that: 

• mailers would continue to pay only 

a per-piece price; 

• dropship discounts would be given 

on these per-piece prices, so that perpiece prices would still vary based upon 

entry (i.e., origin, (destination network 

distribution center) DNDC, DSCF, or 

DDU); and 

• the methodology for calculating 

passthroughs would remain 

substantially unchanged from the 

current formula. 

Id. at 10. The Postal Service states that 

the only difference in its proposed 

methodology and the current 

methodology is the per-piece cost 

avoidance from Folder 13, as submitted 

in its annual compliance filing. Id. The 

Postal Service’s proposed methodology 

for calculating workshare discount 

passthrough percentages for these pieces 

is as follows: 

Per-piece dropship discount/per-piece 

dropship cost avoidance of 

lightweight pieces (Folder 13) 

Id. The Postal Service contends that 

the change to the cost avoidance 

component of the passthrough 

calculation is much closer to actual 

avoided costs than if the weights of 

pieces over 4-ounces were included. Id. 

For mailpieces weighting 4-ounces or 

more, the Postal Services states: 

• prices would continue to have perpiece and per-pound components; 

• pound prices would, once again, 

apply to the entire weight of a piece, not 

just the pounds above the breakpoint as 

they do in the current price structure; 

and 

• the Postal Service would 

reintroduce per-pound dropship 

discounts, and so the per-pound prices 

would again vary by dropship entry 

point, as they did prior to adopting the 

current methodology. 

Id. at 10–11. The Postal Service states 

that, instead of basing dropship 

discounts on the per-piece rates and 

cost avoidances, it proposes to base 

dropship workshare discounts for pieces 

weighing 4 ounces or more on the perpound component of the rates. Id. at 12. 

As such, the Postal Service’s proposed 

methodology for calculating 

passthroughs for pieces weighing 4 

ounces or more is: 

Per-pound dropship discount/Perpound dropship cost avoidance 

(Folder 13) 

Id. 

The Postal Service contends that ‘‘the 

virtue’’ of the proposed methodology is 

that the discounts are tied directly to the 

per-pound cost avoidance and are 

‘‘better aligned with actual cost 

avoidances’’ because they are ‘‘based on 

actual weight.’’ Id. at 12. Finally, the 

Postal Service argues that an 

‘‘immediate effect’’ of its proposal 

would be to double the number of 

workshare discounts, from eight 

discounts to 16, for dropshipped flatshaped USPS Marketing Mail 

mailpieces. Id. at 12–13. 

III. Notice and Comment 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2024–3 for consideration of 

matters raised by the Petition. More 

information on the Petition may be 

accessed via the Commission’s website 

at http://www.prc.gov. Interested 

persons may submit comments on the 

Petition and Proposal One no later than 

February 26, 2024. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12291 

505, JP Klingenberg is designated as an 

officer of the Commission (Public 

Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in this 

proceeding. 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2024–3 for consideration of the 

matters raised by the Petition of the 

United States Postal Service for the 

Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider 

Proposed Changes in Analytical 

Principles (Proposal One), filed 

February 8, 2024. 

2. Comments by interested persons in 

this proceeding are due no later than 

February 26, 2024. 

3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the 

Commission appoints JP Klingenberg to 

serve as an officer of the Commission 

(Public Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in this 

docket. 

4. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Erica A. Barker, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03270 Filed 2–15–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2024–0064; FRL–11722– 

01–R7] 

Air Plan Approval; Iowa; State 

Implementation Plan and State 

Operating Permits Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Iowa State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) and the 

Operating Permit Program for the State 

of Iowa. The revisions update 

incorporations by reference to EPA 

methods for performance testing (stack 

testing), update the definitions, and 

adopt the most recent National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 

ozone. These revisions do not impact 

the stringency of the SIP or have an 

adverse effect on air quality. The EPA’s 

proposed approval of this rule revision 

is being done in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 18, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2024–0064 to https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Written Comments’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bethany Olson, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air 

Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; 

telephone number: (913) 551–7905; 

email address: olson.bethany@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Written Comments 

II. What is being addressed in this document? 

III. What SIP revisions are being proposed by 

EPA? 

IV. What operating permit plan revisions are 

being proposed by EPA? 

V. Have the requirements for approval of a 

SIP and the operating permit plan 

revisions been met? 

VI. What action is the EPA taking? 

VII. Incorporation by Reference 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Written Comments 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2024– 

0064, at https://www.regulations.gov. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

II. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

The EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Iowa SIP and the 

Operating Permits Program received on 

March 29, 2023. The revisions 

incorporate recent changes to Iowa 

Administrative Code. The following 

chapters are impacted: 

• Chapter 20, ‘‘Scope of Title— 

Definitions;’’ 

• Chapter 22, ‘‘Controlling 

Pollution;’’ 

• Chapter 25, ‘‘Measurement of 

Emissions;’’ and 

• Chapter 28, ‘‘Ambient Air Quality 

Standards.’’ 

The revisions update incorporations 

by reference to EPA methods for 

performance testing (stack testing) and 

adopt the most recent National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 

ozone. EPA proposes to find that these 

revisions meet the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act, do not impact the 

stringency of the SIP, and do not 

adversely impact air quality. The full 

text of these changes can be found in the 

State’s submission, which is included in 

the docket for this action. 

Sections 111 and 112 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) allow EPA to delegate 

authority to states for New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). 

EPA has delegated authority to Iowa for 

approved portions of these sections of 

the CAA. Changes made to Iowa’s 

Chapter 23 pertaining to new and 

revised NSPS and NESHAPs are not 

directly approved into the SIP, but 

rather, are adopted by reference. Thus, 

EPA is not proposing to approve the 

changes to Chapter 23 of the Iowa 

Administrative Code into the state’s SIP. 

III. What SIP revisions are being 

proposed by EPA? 

The EPA is proposing the following 

revisions to the Iowa SIP: 

Chapter 20, Subrule 20.2, Scope of 

Title-Definitions: The state revised the 

definition of ‘‘EPA reference method’’ to 

adopt the most current performance test 

(stack test) method as specified in 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A and amended 

or corrected through February 16, 2021. 

The proposed update will ensure that 

state reference methods are equivalent 

to Federal reference methods; thus, EPA 

proposes to approve this change. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1